Murthada v. Highgate Hotels, L.P.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-08615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Murthada v. Highgate Hotels, Judge Broderick ordered Highgate to choose how the court should handle its pending dismissal motion after an amended complaint.
Highgate Hotels, L.P., which must file the required letter, and the pending motion to dismiss and amended complaint in the case.
What happened
In Murthada v. Highgate Hotels, L.P., the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 23, 2024, while Highgate Hotels, L.P.’s motion to dismiss was still pending.
The court explained that it could either treat the pending motion as no longer active, allowing Highgate to file a new motion, or evaluate the existing motion using the amended complaint’s allegations.
Judge Broderick ordered Highgate to file a letter within seven days stating which option it wanted the court to follow. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Murthada v. Highgate Hotels, L.P. · No. 1:23-cv-08615
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 28, 2024
Background
On February 23, 2024, Al Sadik Murthada filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Highgate Hotels, L.P. had already filed a motion to dismiss, and that motion remained pending.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited Second Circuit precedent stating that, when a plaintiff properly amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may either deny the pending motion as moot or evaluate it based on the allegations in the amended complaint. A motion is “moot” when the court treats it as no longer requiring a ruling. The order did not choose between those options.
Order
The court ordered Highgate Hotels, L.P. to file a letter within seven days stating whether its pending motion to dismiss should be treated as moot, without prejudice to filing a new motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), or whether the court should evaluate the current motion in light of the amended complaint. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the underlying claims.
Disposition
This was a procedural order directing Highgate to state how it wanted the pending motion handled.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.